Sunday, November 23, 2014

A year ago we introduced this topic with what was known
at the time.Since then, we are seeing
varying levels of AI stud adoption, from using G tests only to choose young
sires, to assimilating G tested sires right into their main sire lineups as if
they were fully “proven”.We have
some observations drawn from recent conversations around the world.

So how have G tested sires fared in
New Zealand (where G tested sires hit the market in 2005) ?

The two major AI systems in New
Zealand are LIC New Zealand (who breeds 80% of the cows) and CRV Ambreed (who
breeds 10% of the cows).Looking at
the top six rated sires for each AI system over five years of progeny produced
(from 2001 through 2006 calvings), the following happened:

Overestimation on EBV Protein:Holstein:25% for LIC, 11% for CRV.Jersey:35% for LIC, 19% for
CRV.

Overestimation on BW index:Holstein:30% for LIC, 11% for CRV.Jersey:20% for LIC,9% for CRV.

These twelve bulls (each breed) sired
a total of 500,000 progeny annually that were tested.So Rel% for all sires (assigning 75% to the
G tests) ended up at 99% Rel (progeny data replacing the G estimates).

These results (consistently
overstating the superiority of the sires G tested as at “the top”) have driven
the Kiwi’s back to their microscopes and computers to figure out why Genomics
failed as a predictor.One of their
conclusions was that higher density SNPs were required… and always, more data…

So what are the latest developments
incorporated into the August 2009 predictions here?

An individual cow of interest (who has
produced a polled Red & White son) has the following history of Genomic
evaluations:April 2009:GPTA$251 Net Merit:August 2009:GPTA $453 Net merit!

Over $200 gained in “Net Merit”
rank, without any change in her type scores or lactation records.

What changed?After all, her Genomic SNP (direct
measurement of gene enzymes and sequences) would be the same (genes never
change from conception to demise).But
this particular cow has a German AI sire—foreign G test results were not
included by USDA in April, but were in August.In other words, although the G test is a “direct” look at the individual
genotype, we still are interpreting the results in part, on the parentage
of the animals tested.

Should not the accumulating body of G
tests, establishing “marker” genes for each evaluated trait, be the determinant
of a Genomic value, rather than a continuing reliance on the simplistic (lower
Rel%) Parent Average calculations?After all, we had already determined “G” tests were 70% Rel on milk and
60% Rel on type, on the first go-rounds (January 2009).

I posed this question to Dr Curt Van
Tassel, of AIPL-USDA, who is deeply involved in the computer estimation of
trait values from Genomic testing.His
point gave clarity to why we could see such a change on a cow:“…we can only predict genetic values
accurately for animals that are represented in the data.What I mean… is that if we have not seen an
animal with a genotype like the one we are trying to predict, we don’t have a
great ability to predict that genetic value.”The less common a pedigree, the more estimation falls back on Parent
Averages.

This goes a long way toward explaining
why we keep seeing “the same” pedigree combinations on those G tested young
sires who have the “elite” PTA estimations.Those pesky genes still do not wear name tags that say, “I am the milk
gene…”Thus USDA researchers are
hoping to implement new genotype platforms with higher density (600,000 SNPs
compared to the current 50,000 SNPs).

Dr Van Tassell’s“quotes” come from the online “polled dairy cattle” discussion group
within his responses to questions.

What conclusions did Dr Van Tassel
offer for the market use of Genomic data ?

“I was asked after a presentation that
I gave to the New York all-breed society meeting in January 2009 whether I
would use bulls based [entirely] on Genomic testing.My response (which I stand by here in
August) was that if I had spent my life building a herd of cows, that I would
look at any technology that had the ability to undermine those efforts with
great skepticism.I think that this
technology has great promise, but as of yet, is still largely untested in the
true application of predicting response to selection using genomic
predictions.”

He earlier answered my query, “that I
am absolutely correct that we have not seen any real evidence of the PREDICTIVE
power of the Genomic PTA.Everything up
to now has been predicting genetic merit for animals that were selected using
quantitative genetic tools that we then re-predicted using SNP data, OR animals
that have had genomic predictions early in life that have not been validated by
real progeny data.”

The current excitement over Genomics
by those scientists involved at AIPL is… “we have recreated [the selection
scenario] by using genomic data from historic bulls to predict future genetic
merit using data of 5+ years ago, and then looked to see if the predictions
were more accurate than the old [pedigree-based] evaluations, and they indeed
were!”

What underlying problems plague
accuracy in genetic evaluation?

Dr Van Tassel reminded us that based
upon DNA samples of heifers given ID, anywhere from 10% to possibly 40% of the
progeny lists of sampled sires are misidentified (by sire or dam or both).Because this has an ongoing potential to
cause fluctuation in progeny evaluations, it costs us all in accuracy of the
data we attempt to use for genetic selection improvement.

How should we then adapt G tested
sires in our breeding programs?

They remain, for practical purposes,
“young sires for sampling”.Using a
group rather than a single bull choice;using added data from their individuality, pedigree and aAa;avoiding paying too great a premium for an
elite G-based ranking level;all this
makes common sense.

Based on this advice from a scientist
actively working in Genomics (rather than a magazine writer who needed an
upbeat topic for the latest issue) – we offer G tested sires as “super
samplers”, and we do not confuse the ranking of progeny-tested sires on our
price lists alongside G tested young sires.

A final quote from Dr Curt:“if this technology does work, then there is
a huge opportunity for someone to use it aggressively as an ‘early
adopter’.”So do your homework and
buy sires accordingly.

The breeder’s philosophy in the use of sire selection tools

We tend to believe that, every time a
new technology comes along, it makes earlier practices obsolete.In dairy cattle selection and mating, this
is not supported by experience.The
more tools available, old or new, the better job we do at sorting the long-term
useful (dependable) from the short-term novelty.

Genomics is no different today than
indexes were in 1970; they are a way to screen animals, while you seek the
traits and qualities specific to needs you have in your herd.The identification of those traits specific
to problems in your herd, which can be solved by careful analysis and mating by
heritability, remains more important to your profitability than any external
ranking of genetic value.

Are you ready to pass up progeny testing to rely
completely on Genomic testing?

At least one major AI system is so convinced that
Genomics is a “done deal” that it has replaced 99% Rel progeny-tested sires
with G-tested sires on its active sire price list and is scaling back its young
sire sampling program in favor of its own ET donor herd.

Inside you will find data of earlier G-test
experiences around the world, an example of a current issue in debate on how G
testing should be done, and a recommendation from a key researcher that
cautions caution alongside optimism.

Our goal is that your herd continue to improve as
fast as good genes and sound matings and competent heifer rearing allows.We hope you find this information challenging
and able to stimulate better-informed questions on sire selection.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

I have always found pedigree studies fascinating, and it is
one of the reasons why I remain “contrarian” on breeding selection by indexes
alone (or even primarily).

The three main Holstein “production” sire lines descend
from three sires – Wis Burke Ideal born in 1947, Osborndale
Ivanhoe born 1952, and Pawnee Farm Arlinda Chief born
1962.All three sires developed in the
context of earlier sire selection systems that combined a belief in
“linebreeding” with the breeding worth estimations used prior to “Animal
Model” and composite index rankings.

“Ivanhoe” was proven by three breeder partners in
CT, MA and RI, started out controversial for type when first entering AI in
1958, but within a decade his “tall, style” physique became the Holstein type
standard.In 1966, at 99% Rpt, he was
only +270m, with plus bf%, +21bf—hardly a “ranking” sire in an era that had AI
proven sires as high as +1600m.But
those other “milk” sirelines are extinct, while “Ivanhoe”—the +1.66 “type” and
+2.40 “stature” sire is the direct grandsire of Carlin M Ivanhoe Bell (born
1974), whose sons once dominated the ranking lists for milk and protein
production, and whose descendants (in spite of *BL and *CV) are still pretty
obvious around the world.

In three generations, “Ivanhoe” as atype sire, produced“Apollo” (the sire of +2000m “Wayne”) and
“Ivanhoe Star” (+1000m in his own right), among many others…His son “Mowry Prince” sired the first
50,000-pound cow, Mowry Prince Corrine… “Ivanhoe Star” then produced “Bell”
whose +1700m with +60bf and +40pr put him at the top, at the beginning of the
“indexing” era.[Note: both bulls Mowry
Ivanhoe Prince and Penstate Ivanhoe Star are the cross of Osborndale Ivanhoe
onto Lauxmont Admiral Lucifer daughters.]

“Arlinda Chief” was proven by Wally Lindskoog in
CA, entering AI on a two-herd proof in 1967, and thus was highly controversial
even before we had the multi-herd AI sampling model thoroughly in place.

But he was +1622m and +79bf in those two herds, so many
were willing to give him a chance.By
the time he was 99% Rel he had reached the +1805m mark—also climbing from +0.35
to +1.17 type.

What makes “Chief” so unique today was more common in his
era—he was closely linebred, with three close crosses to ABC Reflection
Sovereign, a Canadian “show type” bull—six crosses to Montvic Rag Apple
Sovereign (sire of “ABC”)— and twelve crossesto Johanna Rag Apple Pabst (maternal
grand-sire to “Sovereign”).Most of
the “ABC” sons were more “type” than “milk”, but they were used in a similar
way to “Ivanhoe”—as sources of more “modern” udder and stature traits.

In three generations, looking on the sire side of
“Chief”, you go from a –1035m double grandson of old “ABC” (Rosafe Pearl
Hannibal) to a +700m bull, whose dam also carried more “Sovereign” (Pawnee Farm
Reflection Admiral), to “Arlinda Chief”, both of whose grandams were sired by
the same old “Sovereign” son (Tabur Sovereign Man O War).–1035m to +700m to +1800m in three
generations.

“Chief” started breeding milky sons and never quit—first
Glendell, then Conductor, then Valiant, then Milu Betty, all the way to Walkway
Chief Mark (a fifteen year span from first to last AI success).He sired a world record cow—Beecher Arlinda
Ellen (55,661 pounds in 365 days before rBST).

Milu Betty Ivanhoe Chief
– never as widely used, thus easier to forget today, combined “Chief” on top
and “Ivanhoe” on the bottom, and his grandam was Dunloggin-bred just like those
old “Lucifer” cows behind “Ivanhoe Star” and “Prince”.But he sired Cal Clark Board
Chairman, who in turn is sire of ToMar Blackstar – so you
can see what we sometimes consider “outcross” is more mating effect than
ancestral exclusion.(“Blackstar”
is a multiple of Chief, Elevation, Ivanhoe and Burke crosses).

“Selecting for Type does lead to Production—just not overnight”(page two)

“Wis Burke Ideal” -- why leave the eldest to last?Because
his influence is more subtle, yet more extensive, than the credit he ever
gets.Holstein’s “Red Book” tells you
the three biggest sire lines are basically“Bell” (Ivanhoe) – “Chief” (Rag Apple) – and “Elevation”, and that is
true—but old Elevation combines all three lines—the “Burke’s” through his
inbred sire Tidy Burke Elevation, “Ivanhoe”
from his dam—Round Oak Ivanhoe Eve—and the Rag Apples through the linebred dam
of old “Eve”.Just as “Ivanhoe” was
the result of “linebred sire x inbred dam” from two unrelated lines,
“Elevation” was a result of “inbred sire x linebred dam” from two unrelated
lines.

“Elevation” basically preserved the
smoother Burke bloodline phenotype into modern breeding, as a
mating balance for the “tall, dairy” Ivanhoe type and the “strong, style” Chief
type.Old Wis Burke Ideal was wide,
deep, open ribbed, strong front-ended.He was only +477m in his era, but he sired useful bulls like Tidy
Burke Forty Niner (+835m at 99% Rpt, who sired +2000m Arlinda Jet Stream,
who sired +3000m Browncroft Jetson).He
was # one bull for Feet under Holstein USA’s “descriptive type” system and
lived over 17 years of age.The Thonyma
and Paclamar herds were deep into WBI breeding—he is part of the sire side of Paclamar
Astronaut (considered by many the major modern source of “Protein” in
Holstein breeding).

“Elevation” was noted early on for
“milk” sons like Rockalli Son of Bova (in four generations you have
today’s Net Merit leader “O-Man”) -- and later for “type” sons like Hanoverhill
Starbuck (two major crosses to WBI—“Elevation” as sire, “Astronaut” as the
dam’s sire).Here again, the “three
generation” rule seems to apply:Hanoverhill Starbuck(a
“type” sire)

The “Elevation” influence should be
heavy in “Shottle”, as he carries four crosses (Mtoto is doubled Elevation,
Aerostar is doubled Elevation) – but he breeds more like old
“Starbuck”.So you could probably cross him on “O-Man”
(strong, wide) as well as “Storm” (dairy, wide) and get good results, even if
that means even more crosses to old “Elevation”[and “Ivanhoe”][and “Chief” as
well].

My final example—the dam of “Shottle”
is a three generation progression as well, from type to milk, without sacrifice
of type:(dam three) sired by Browndale
Commissioner, a “pure type” bull;(dam two) sired by Hanoverhill Inspiration, a “type” pedigreed
milk bull;(dam one) sired by Madawaska
Aerostar, a true “milk” bull, who actually was inconsistent in type—but the
result was an EX-91 cow who produced a top record of 45,000m with 2340bf in
fourth lactation, and a world-class “index” bull.

Sowhatismypoint ??

Quit
worrying that every bull you use has to be +1000m.It is more important that every bull you
use is capable of adding more desired traits, than undesirable weaknesses.It is also more important that your mating
combinations produce phenotypic balance, than that they have a high
pedigree index.If we are learning
anything from Genomic testing, it is that “pedigree” was an imperfect predictor
of performance, and that “inbreeding” is not pedigree-driven, it is an increase
in homozygous gene pairings, which may occur more often from mating similar
phenotypes than it comes from passive pedigree relationship

75% of most dairy breed type
classification systems involve the measurements of traits within the pelvic
region--rump angle, pin set, thurl
width, pin width, leg set, foot angle, and all the udder traits.In the Holstein breed, both Udder
Composite and Foot and Leg Composite are calculated from
views of traits developed in the pelvic region.The other two type composites are mostly
ignored in sire ranking lists.

Is that all that matters in structural selection?

Compare the above “pelvic region”
traits to the “frame” traits we measure:

Stature, “Strength”, Body Depth, Dairy
Form.The volume of the cow ahead of
the hips is 75% of the total cow as a physiological and physical being, yet 75%
of our selection attention is from hips to tail.

A large percentage of AI semen is sold
strictly on the level of UDC and FLC that bulls’ data expresses.

But it is a biological mistake to
assume that the only genes that “matter” are in the rear end.Nowhere is this more evident, than in the
frequency with which bulls who are plus UDC and FLC still end up as a “minus”
for Productive Life—ie, their offspring leave dairy herds earlier than the
average cow herdlife.

What connects the “front end” to the “rear end” of a
cow?

If you study a bovine skeleton, you
realize that the head, neck, foreleg, chine, and rib cage are one set of
interconnected bones.The pelvis, loin,
hind legs and tail are a separate set of bones.Connecting one to the other is the spinal
(vertebral) column.But the actual
connective tissue of all skeletal structures is cartilage, tendons,
muscling, nerves, and hide—what a biologist calls “soft tissue structures”.

The functioning interaction of muscles
and bones is dependent on five internal organic systems, that are functioning
in parallel— respiratory, circulatory, glandular, digestive, and nervous
systems.Glands produce hormones
that regulate growth, digestion, metabolism, and reproduction.Respiration is the method of oxygenating
the blood, which circulation moves through the musculature and transports the
nutrients.Digestion takes raw food
elements and breaks them down into blood-soluble proteins and nutrient energy
forms, which the body organs either use now or store for later.Respiration, circulation and water intake
team up to cool the body that is heated by the ruminant digestive
processes.Through all this, the
nervous system both sends signals for muscular movement (both external and
internal) and regulates the disposition of the animal to its environment.All of this must be efficiently
“housed”.

Production – in biology, a subset of reproduction

Our selection focus in dairy breeding
has been both the direct (lactation yield) and indirect (visual type)
measurement of “productive ability”.Along the way, we standardized lactation measurement lengths so we could
“rank” production, and we focused on linearly measurable traits we could “rank”
based on their perceived contribution to productive behavior and ease of
milking and handling.We only added
new measures (butterfat %) (protein %) (somatic cell score) as the milk market
offered differential pay- ments for milk relative to the presence or absence of
these substances in milk harvested.

Production—in biology, a subset
of reproduction(page two)

But as our focus on measurement
increased, we lost sight of the factors affecting the efficiency of the
production harvested.We ignored
fertility, assuming what was OK now would stay OK generations later.And as we lost ground, we developed new
technologies to replace the genes lost for fertility.These replacement technologies included rBST
(persistency in a needle) and OvSynch (fertility in same).

How should we look at the pelvis, separate or connected to the overall
frame??

Now that genetic focus is shifting
toward “longevity” as lower-cost production than “fast maturity”, we have a
chance to return to a more comprehensive view of the physique as a connected
totality.Because the key
differences between the fast maturity and the functional longevity cow are
structurally related.

If you draw a cow, you realize that
linearly measured traits to not describe the entire cow physique.We
chose traits, based on two criteria:(1)
consistent measurability on a linear scale,(2) relationship to the faster maturing production ability.The resiliency of the total organic
system was not considered, as the primal assumption was that low milk yield was
the primary genetic reason cows were culled young.

Today, we see mostly structural
reasons for cows leaving herds early:(1)leg or hoof troubles, (2)
udder troubles, including mastitis, (3) failure to conceive, (4) injury during
calving, (5) death after metabolic disease, (6) injury in stalls or group
stables.Many cows marked “cull= low
production” actually drifted into culling as a result of primary reasons (1)
thru (6).So common sense tell us the
benefit of good type is to resist early death loss from structural
reasons, or 2/3 of the reasons noted.

In this, there is an “ideal” physical
expression, and it may not match type selection fads in some breeds.

How much emphasis in sire selection and mating
should be given to “frame”?

This is an important question in an era where
“longevity” is again considered of value, primarily to reduce the replacement
costs of maintaining higher production (mature cows that remain healthy and
mobile give the most milk, exceeding heifers by 20% annually even after
“genetic selection trend” has its impact).

“Frame” matters – primarily as we remember the
ruminant function of the dairy cow.

Forage capacity of the cow is dictated by a frame
proportion equally tall and wide, with depth and openness of rib to allow full
expansion of the rumen and abomasums

The functional traits enclosed by the pelvis
(calving, hind leg mobility, udder position) require support from the front end
and body of the cow for optimal lifetime production.

The mating system we use has a comprehensive focus
on the interrelationships above.

Interview with Melanie—she feeds calves with son
Nathan.As they milk 360 cows, they
are dealing with large numbers of calves born year around.Herd is expanding to 600 cows, from natural
increase – ie, successful breeding program and competent calf/heifer rearing
program.

Calving is in a pack barn addition on W side of a
free stall barn set up for dry cows and close-up bred heifers.Cows receive usual vaccinations in head
locks of dry cow barn.In specific
case of J-5 [mastitis] vaccine, only give one shot dry, second shot after
calving—to avoid experience they were having with aborted calves (born
early,backwards and not surviving).

They experience calf sizes from 40 pounds to 70
pounds.The selection trend in the
herd has been in favor of a larger, stronger Jersey, thus the increasing calf
sizes.Melanie noted range of size
has to be factored into calf care—the little ones need concentrated nutrition,
the big ones do better with an extra mid-day feeding to keep them growing.

Colostrum from momma is given at birth, with a
target volume of two-three quarts depending on size at birth.In the past year they started adding a
package of an immunoglobulin product , “Alta-Gold”[ footnote 1]to insure the level of antibodies received by
the calf is adequate to the need.They use a “colostrometer” to check density of colostrum, as one
maternal line had been discovered that seems to be routinely deficient—those
calves receive stored colostrums.

Melanie notes the significance of the wide range of bf%
and pr% tests modern Jerseys produce can have an effect on the “value” of
momma’s milk—a cow testing 6%bf is going to have 50% more digestible fat
in her milk than a cow testing 4%.She strongly recommends, in the case of feeding whole milk, that
Holstein and/or lower test Jersey momma’s milk be supplemented with the
addition of a high fat milk replacer to insure the calf is getting “Jersey”
nutrient density.

Calf pens are individual 4 x 8inside a cold high roofline pole barn that is
directly E side of the dry cow/calving barn, solid dividers so calves cannot
kiss each other.In extreme cold
weather “Woolover” calf jackets are used (prefers “Woolover” type jacket due to
ability to wick moisture away from calf’s hide).Special needs calves may get a heat lamp
for a bit.[footnote 2]

These pens get shavings for bedding, to absorb urine.In cold weather, straw is added on
top.Melanie believes the straw should
be used year round, as young calves (not receiving hay) may want to chew on
something with fiber, the straw would be safe, but the shavings are not.

They were losing calves when feeding conventional milk
replacers (Cargill was mentioned).So
currently use “Renaissance 22/20 milk replacer” medicated with Oxytetracycline
and Neomycin (medication is used due to prior pneumonia experiences).There is no vegetable-based protein (ie,
soy powder) in this replacer—it is all milk.There is also a yeast ingredient to stimulate the early rumen
development.She mentioned they
have also had good luck with IBA’s “Winter Care” milk replacer, the
“Renaissance” is a regional (PA) brand they obtain at favorable prices.

50 degrees F is seen as the benchmark temp for supplemental
mid-day feeding, in which they use an electrolyte product with microflora,
diluted in warm water.Only one quart
is given at the mid-day feeding, but two quarts is normal for the am and pm
milk feedings.The idea is to avoid
loss of body heat that will lead to other problems.As calves get bigger, say a month old, the
mid-day electrolytes are replaced with a third milk feeding.[footnote 2]

She does not force a newborn to eat her full feed each
feeding.She says that if they got a
full load of colostrum day one, then take their full bottle day two am, by next
feeding, they may not be hungry enough to eat a full bottle.Feed them to appetite, then stop—next
feeding they will be hungrier.Force
feeding just seems to lead to scours, and then you fight a battle you might
lose.If calf is normal, they will be
up to full intake within a week.

Calf starter is provided from birth in a “Braden” feeding
bottle.Melanie believes this feeder
has these advantages:(1)Jersey calves like to suck something—the
Braden feeder uses nipple shaped ends that attract the calf;(2)Sucking the Braden nipple releases grain into the calf’s mouth, thus
they will be introduced to grain without hand-forcing;(3)The design minimizes grain loss, as the calf cannot contaminate the
grain in the feeder [as happens with buckets they can climb in, slobber over,
or back up to].The grain stays dry
and thus fresher.

Fresh water is offered the
calves while still on milk, as they need to learn to drink it prior to weaning.Hay is first introduced after weaning.[footnote 3]

It seemed to be Melanie’s
opinion(she grew up with Guernseys,
married into Jerseys)that we lose more
Jersey calves from damp environments and inadequate nutrition, than we ever
lose from missing a vaccination.The
Jersey calf is born without fat reserves in her body, which makes her different
from a Holstein or Brown Swiss calf—thus from day one and until weaned,high fat, high protein, high
digestibility milkis the feed
of choice.[footnote 4]

She saw the use of pasteurized
whole milk as fully equivalent to using a premium milk replacer, but she
cautioned we recognize that “whole milk” from high production Holsteins might
only be 3.3% butterfat and 2.8% protein – thus starts out at almost half the
expectation of Jersey genes that momma is going to feed her baby 6.0% butterfat
and 4.0% protein milk.Thus, in a
whole milk feeding system, she suggests we buy some good milk replacer, and add
half a cup to the milk as fed, and see if you keep calves alive that way.[footnote 5]

She also suggests we avoid “cow
grain” going into calves until past weaning, when they are also eating some
hay.Calf grain needs to not have fine
particles in it that aggravate the calf lungs as a dust inhaled from eating the
grain.[footnote 6]

[end of interview]Thank you to Melanie for her
willingness to share her experiences.

This interview was conducted at Dutch Hollow Jerseys by
Greg Palen on Feb 18, 2009.

[footnote 1]Another successful brand widely available
in Michigan is “Colostrix”.

[footnote 2]Jersey calves in outdoor hutches in cold
winter also benefit from bedding to trap body heat, due to thinner muscle/fat
cover, and in our opinion, the calf jackets are a must when using hutches for
similar reasons.I saw bedding packs
in all the hutches at Den-Kel Jerseys (Kip and Robin Keller, Byron NY) the day
before visiting Dutch Hollow.

In hot summer a Jersey calf in an
outdoor hutch that traps sun heat might also benefit from a mid-day feed of
electrolytes and water, just to avoid dehydration??

[footnote 3]The feed company prohibition against
feeding calves “hay” is based on a blanket assumption that a “dairyman” would
only raise “alfalfa”.The rumen needs
about four months’ development before it can process alfalfa, thus feeding it
earlier tends to scour calves.BUT if
you have access to nice soft “grass” hay, a calf can eat that from day one, and
it will dramatically improve the growth rate and shorten the weaning period for
a Jersey calf, but requires water be available at the same time (chewing on the
hay will make them thirsty).

[footnote 4]John P Reber DVM, who both breeds Jerseys
and practices as a veterinarian in a large number of Jersey herds around
Wooster OH, says that in his experience, when called out to treat a sick Jersey
calf, if they still die, the cause is frequently “starvation”.In his experience you can feed a Jersey
calf as much as a Holstein calf, after a few days of working them up to it.

[footnote 5]Until the renaissance in Jerseys in the
1980s, Jersey bloodlines were regionalized and the type of Jersey preferred in
the deep south and arid west tended to be a smaller, fine bone cow that milked
heavier but tested lower (southern milk marketing still avoids paying for
solids values—high milk, low test% bulls remain more popular there than in
Midwest and Northeast).

My question is—as those cattle never
experience winter, do they have a reduced ability to make colostrums with the
density of immunoglobulins to get a cold climate calf to live and grow??

[footnote 6]We went through a winter where we were
losing calves closely after weaning, and our veterinarian eventually said they
were dying of Mycoplasmic Pneumonia.The source of the mycotoxins was the ground corn in our weaning
transition grain mix—the fine particles and mold particles would be inhaled by
the calf while eating, and they basically foamed up in their lungs.We went back to the calf starter for two
more months, and the problem went away.

So far, Genomic testing is being pursued in all
breeds, but for assumptions of statistical reliability, are only being
published in the Holstein and Jersey breeds.The larger data set for Holsteins is assigning “G” tested bulls 60% to
70% Rel on individual traits;for
Jerseys a smaller data set is assigning “G” tested bulls 40% to 45% Rel on
various traits.

We observe some dairymen (who trust data crunchers
implicitly) buying individual “G” tested sires at premium prices, just as if
they were truly “proven”.NOTE that
scientist consensus at this point is to “sample” a group of “G” tested sires
like you would have a group of young sires selected strictly on pedigree
merit.This will be a safer approach,
at least until we see progeny data on bulls being marketed from “G” estimates.

Taurus Service [Affiliated Sires] has
published a directory of “G” tested young sires, and those are available to you
upon request.We have selected a group
of these sires to offer at package discount prices—you will find them quite
sensibly priced, relative to the heavy promotional pricing we have observed
from other sire development systems.

“CORRELATION”DOESNOTEQUAL“CAUSATION”

Genomic tested sires (the highest ranked of whom all
appear related) have raised the question of the advantages of
“linebreeding”.Here are some relevant
thoughts:

Linebreeding possesses the same “risk
to benefit” ratio it has always carried.When you have found or bred the animal you want, the most economical way
to replicate it is to linebreed it--except that, in the process, without careful mating balancing, you will
at some point produce more extreme phenotypes.

It is the “extreme” phenotype—when
“dairy” turns “frail”, when “tall” turns “narrow”, when “refined” turns
“small”—where we see the negative results in fertility, health, longevity, and
limits on production.

In Holsteins, as a result of older
classifier resistance to accept more recent direction that a wider front end
has longevity value, we seem to be reverting to “the narrower the better” view
of what makes a Holstein “dairy” and ‘stylish”. (This was very evident in Holstein
judging at Madison last fall.)We can
expect to see continued problems with functional longevity from this “narrow”
view of the “dairy” phenotype.

Extreme phenotypes are created
when both thetrait selectionandmating processesshift from being
an “additive” approach to a “subtractive” approach.

When we are additive, we
develop matings in which we compensate;ie, width is added when we have reached our ideal stature;
depth is added when we have our ideal length; substance is added
when we have reached our ideal angularity; mobility is added when we
have reached our ideal scale; and
an elongation of skeletal extremities reaches functional limits dictated by the
housing environment.

We shift to subtractive when we
get enthralled by a visual representation of the current “ideal” fads and begin
to make “likes to likes” matings—thus instead of having a “balanced”
(level with topline) front end, we get enthralled with cows walking “uphill”
[to show] or “downhill” [to milk];instead of “level” rumps (which maintain a level udder floor) we seek
more “slope;instead of “arched”
pelvises (which provide the greatest calving ease) we seek “boxcar flat” rumps
with tailsets sunk between the pins.

Focus on “stature” with “angularity” and you
willsubtractwidth, depth and spring of rib—leading to
twisted abomasums.

Focus on high “peak” production with “angularity”
and you willsubtractbody condition maintenance and cow fertility.

Focus on narrow “dairy” front ends and you willsubtractfront leg mobility, replacing it with brittle
bones and stiffness.

Focus on narrow “dairy” body and rear ends, and you
willsubtractforage feed efficiency and persistency in
lactation.

The mating process that leads to our
“ideal” is not a process of “like to like” --it is a “what do I need to add next to get more improvement”
process.It requires us to address
the individual weakness that inhibits full performance from each animal,
identify its causation, and match her to a bull possessing an ability to
provide causative improvement.Thus,
we gain function from an additive analyzation of the individual.

Statistical ranking indexes trap
us in the fear that “I can only use the top sires across my herd, or I will
go backwards”. This frame of mind
lacks objectivity about the relative imperfections ofanimals we rank as “closest to
perfection”.There is no “perfect”
cow or bull, which is why none of them produce “perfect” offspring in reality–
the “like to like” effect always results in an element of subtractive
realization starting within all the traits and qualities not considered
important within the index “ranking” formula.

Think additively when designing
matings on your cows.Potential
genetic improvement is only realized when we allow the better traits of the cow
a chance to pass through to her offspring.The bull only does 50% of it.

ENERGY
RATIONING

When we look at PTA values for milk, bf%, pr%, DPR
and SCS, we are seeing the effect of how that bull’s daughters are genetically
programmed to ration nutrient energy.

It is a triangularPRODUCTION

Interrelationship:Volume(higher bf% and
pr% yields

Componentsrequire more calories)

(all are

REPRODUCTIONenergy drivenHEALTH

Calving vigorfunctions)Immunity

Fertility rateBody Condtion

In years past, most dairyman emphasized PD Milk
(volume) as their primary selection criteria, followed by PTA Type (score) as
their secondary selection criteria.“Milk” was emphasized for income gain and “Type” was emphasized for
longer productive life.We only made
one mistake—we defined a lack of body conditioning ability as “dairy”.Since then, we have suffered loss of timely
fertility.

The advent of health and fitness
traits (including DPR, a fertility measure) reminded us of the genetics of
fertility.Trouble is, we are still
milking cows whose genetics reflect the earlier, simplistic thinking.How do we breed back in the milk value,
fertility, and health qualities lost from earlier sire selections ??

Understand the cow’s energy metabolism

High PTA Milk volume bulls, possess genetics that
will short either “health” or “reproduction” to make the higher peak test days
leading to the bigger ME lactation values on which the PTAs are based.

“Shottle” while negative for DPR
(cow fertility rate) is so positive otherwise on health and repro linked traits
(SCS below 3.00) (Stillbirths below 8.0%) (Productive Life high plus), that he
is more likely an example of “delayed” fertility (ie, breed back once gaining
body condition*) than “slow” fertility, that requires lots of hormone therapy
to get back in calf.This is
consistent with his 2-4-3-6-1-5* aAa.

How “aAa” helps with energy rationing

Most sires who are more “sharp”
(2-3-1) than “round” (5-4-6) in their mating qualities, will tend to be slower
at gaining back body condition after reaching peak milk.You will find that if you keep the “sharp”
(performance) and “round” (substance) qualities in your herd in balance, that
reproduction and health qualities will improve—allowing them to express
their genetic yield capability more profitably.

But if you wish to be sure, also
consider the cow line evidence—for example, “Shottle’s” dam set a UK milk
record in her fourth lactation (the average commercial cow peaks in her second
lactation and leaves in the middle of her third).Thus she gives evidence of mature health,
fertility and productivity.

Subscribe by Email

About the Author

Greg Palen grew up on a family dairy modeled on Louis Bromfield's Malabar Farm, which later converted to beef cow calf. After Business School at University of Michigan, Greg became involved with dealer recruitment and distribution for Tri-State Breeders of Wisconsin and then what became Semex USA.

Approved to provide "aAa" (Weeks) Breeding Guide in 1994, a full time activity today. Greg's own Netherhall Farm, a grass based rotation grazing dairy, breeding purebred polled Jerseys designed to meet all body functions on forage energy.